J. Allard Interview Pt. 2

[Qroach]

All the money in the world can't do anything with supply problem so I don't think Microsoft will avoid supply problem this time either, with Xbox360 featuring high-end silicons.

Hardly. it's both a money, time, and planning problem. All of which are solveable.

 

[JasonLD]

All the money in the world can't do anything with supply problem so I don't think Microsoft will avoid supply problem this time either, with Xbox360 featuring high-end silicons.

Hardly. it's both a money, time, and planning problem. All of which are solveable.

I was exaggerating a little to prove my point.lol.

 

[jvd]

But i am sure having 3+ million units each for all territories within 6 months after launch is really difficult. It really cannot be compared to PS2 situation because 1+ year timeframe between Japanese launch and European launch.
If they start producing them now, it might be possible, but I don't think they can..lol.

well look from what i gather tmsc is making the gpu , another fab is making the edram and asmc i believe is combining the two .

the cpu will be kinda big but i believe its sub 200m transistors

the ram shouldn't be to hard to make there are big companys already mass producing the ram .

The dvd drive has been mass produced in the last few years . So i really think they can do it and I hope i'm right as it will really give ms an edge that they really need to start balancing the market

 

[mckmas8808]

I remember reading that MS were trying to launch with one million consoles in each territory. I'm not sure if they will reach that amount but if they do that could be seen as a success. Hopefully after the first batch they can still produce it in huge amounts.

Is mckmas8808 just going to try to counter every single argument in here? Perhaps he should just agree to disagree, as everyone already knows what his favourite console is.

Or are you guys trying to disagree with everything that I'm trying to say. There are others that agree with me in this thread too.
________
Honda nsr50r

 

[Acert93]

Comparing console games to PC is really not fair. Those games require you to upgrade your GPU more often than getting a new console. For over $1000 I better have something thats better than a $300 console. Today a great GPU may cost you over $500 whereas any of the consoles today would cost less than $150.

Go back and read what I originally wrote. Some of the consoles are using ~1999 technology. Their graphics are NOT good relatively compared to what is available. Very few games are HD, they lack memory (32MB-64MB), they lack AA and AF, they are mostly Fixed Function (i.e. very little programmable shaders), normal maps are rare, they are are relatively low polygon, etc...

This has NOTHING to do with comparing RE4 GCN to the PS2 port. Yeah, RE4 may look good for a console game--but that has more to do with the art direction than the technical merits of the game.

As for comparing to a PC, it is fair. Look at the consoles. They are getting top end GPU parts from PC makers. Their CPUs are better gaming CPUs than PC CPUs. They have as much memory as high end games require (I do not know of any game that requires more than 512MB).

Even more consoles are sold in the millions of units at a loss. Every PC part, EVERY part, is sold for a profit and usually on a smaller scale. ANd every part has their own company backing and advertising campaign whereas Consoles are marketed as a total product. e.g. The AMD64 3800+ 90nm comes from the same bin as the 3000+ (just different multiplier). Yet there was like a $500 difference between these two chips.

Ditto GPUs. People were buying crippled NV40's as 6800s as $250 6800 LEs (and note: 3rd party card maker buys the chip, buys the memory, and makes the cards, markets it, distributes it, and then makes a profit + the retailer profit... the chip itself is very little of the actual cost). On the other end of the scale people were selling NV40's as 6800 Ultras for almost $600. Same GPU chip and totally different price range.

So when you realize the economy of consoles--that they are sold to the retailer at a loss and the retailer sells it at cost--and then compare that to PCs--the parts on every card are sold at a profit after all expenses (advertising, manufacturing, R&D, etc), every card/part is sold at a profit, the system maker sells it at a profit, and the retailer sells at a profit--it is very fair to compare. Especially when you have $600 retail PCs (the actual cost of making that is probably half of that) with a monitor, ~3000MHz CPU, 6600 AGP card, HDD, printer, KB, MS, and what not.

That PC can play the new games at HD resolutions that look substantially better than console games. And that is now. That is not looking forward to the fact the consoles are 2005/2006 devices with high end parts.

Since the new consoles are going to own the PC for a while, it is a fair comparison (they have a lot of cross breeding in technology).

Anyhow, my point was clearly how games do not look that great in very specific areas (like texturing due to memory limitations, non-HD, etc...) and are using 1999ish technology. You can talk about how great PS2 RE4 looks, but when you look at the new consoles, look at the PC for the last 2 years, you shake your head. They do not look technically great. Great for an old console, good art, but nothing special.

And for the record I don't agree with the 4 year thing. 5 years are ok, 4 seems to short. And going by what you said the PS3 should have came out in the year 2004. Well if it came out in 2004 the X360 and NR would have killed anything Sony could have thrown at it. That would have put Sony at a horrible place.

Again, go back and read what was written. I was argueing that 4 is better than 6. I am fine with 5, but will take 4 over 6.

So according to ME, PS3 should have came out in... 2005! And Sony is launching in Spring 2006, so technically it would seem possible if Sony had planned as much. It is all about planning... Sony has very little of interest come this fall in games. Ditta Nintendo (sans Zelda) and MS. The last 2 years have seen a ton of block buster games, but 2006 is really slowing down. And with no actualy in-game playable media at E3 it seems Sony is not currently read for a 2005 launch. But that all has to do with planning.

Sony was milking this generation for all it was worth. And as the market leader they should do that. But I do not think that should dictate everyone else follow a 5-6 year cycle.

Right now it looks like Sony might implement some kind of gyro technology in the PS3. They couldn't have done that in 2004 properly.

Says WHO? Source? Nintendo has been working with some gyro company for years. Maybe Sony could not have done that in 2004 because they never had the idea

The CELL chip or RSX wouldn't have been finished.

CELL could have been ready for 2005. RSX, if they had contracted with NV sooner could have to as it is a implimention of the next gen GF (which is launching this month commercially). Both technologies are here and now and would have been ready for 2005. There was no need technologically for 2006. With XDR in production it would seem the part that would be in shortest supply would be BR.

It would have been a PS 2.5 instead. I think 4 is too short while 6 maybe a little too long.

Your opinion. Like I said, a 2005 launch would have been nearly identical in HW. A 2004 launch would have been different, but we do not know how different. CELL would have been accelerated, so we may have seen a smaller CELL (like 1:4) or Sony push 90nm production. As for the GPU we would have seen a NV40 class GPU--very feature rich chip with SM3.0 and FP16 blending. So a 2004 PS3 launch may have been less powerful than the 2006 PS3, but it would not have been a PS 2.5 at all. You are talking about a system leaps and bounds more powerful than the PS2.

I think its worth waiting a little bit longer for a Blu-ray drive, Gigabit ethernet port, RSX, Agegia like physics, etc. A 2004 PS3 couldn't have had none of this stuff. As a matter a fact PC games like F.E.A.R. would have already surpassed the PS3 if it would have came out in 2004.

:Roll: FEAR hardly taps the potentual of a top end GPU. Closed boxes are way more proficient and developers develop for the actual HW features and strengths/limitations. That is one reason you will be seeing console games look great in 2007.

And the other stuff is the crux of the debate: You would rather wait 6 years to get new fangled technology. Since BR is not an industry standard and has no media available I could care less. Gbit ethernet has been around for years and could have been included in 2005 or 2004. The RSX is a beefed up NV40 + some bells and whistles it seems, and the Ageias physics? Come on now... Tim Sweeny said the Xbox 360 will have Ageias level physics and it is supposedly 1/2 the FP performance.

But it goes back to: is your console an all in one media device first, or a game system most. I would rather have a console that is games first and uses whatever technology that best suits its needs at the time. Extending a life cycle 6 years to get some unestablished formats or to milk money out your customers is good for business but not something I want.

I would rather a company be more progressive than too slow. Look at the Xbox 360. A 4year cycle did not make it a weak machine. 8x the memory, HD output standard, AA standard, a GPU that may rival Sony's 2006 offering, a nice CPU, Online standard, etc... This is a progressive machine in features and services. If MS could do that in 2005 so could Sony.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I think that MS could still really hurt Sony by sticking to a 5-year cycle even. Sony's PS investment is pretty huge. They almost need that 6th year to be profitable, especially after their marketshare erodes a little more. While as a gamer I prefer the 4-year scenario, I can understand why console makers, developers and publishers would be reluctant to go less than 5 years.

As far as MS launching in all territories: They can do this, mainly because the initial demand for X360 will be less than what the initial PS2 demand was. Don't get me wrong, the demand will still be very good and they'll sell all 3M and create good press.

Also, let's not kid ourselves. Sony is launching in Japan in Q2 2006, NA in Q4 2006, and Europe probably not until early 2007.

IMO Sony is way behind MS in development. MS is exactly where they were in 2001 with Xbox and Sony is exactly where they were with PS2 in 1999. I wouldn't be surprised if X360 hits 10 million before PS3 even launches in the US market.

With all that being said, I think that Sony can still catch up and surpass MS in unit sales, but the race will be much closer this time. It will also depend a lot on the "wildcard" factor. What will be the next Halo? GTA? Will Sony or MS secure these new killer titles? Hard to say.

 

[mckmas8808]

So according to ME, PS3 should have came out in... 2005! And Sony is launching in Spring 2006, so technically it would seem possible if Sony had planned as much. It is all about planning... Sony has very little of interest come this fall in games. Ditta Nintendo (sans Zelda) and MS. The last 2 years have seen a ton of block buster games, but 2006 is really slowing down. And with no actualy in-game playable media at E3 it seems Sony is not currently read for a 2005 launch. But that all has to do with planning

A lot of people love the lineup for Sony come this year. All of the games I mentioned are highly wanted titles. Same for Zelda. People want those games too, not just new HW. New HW is nice, but can I please get my worth out of them.

CELL could have been ready for 2005. RSX, if they had contracted with NV sooner could have to as it is a implimention of the next gen GF (which is launching this month commercially). Both technologies are here and now and would have been ready for 2005. There was no need technologically for 2006. With XDR in production it would seem the part that would be in shortest supply would be BR.

Who do you work for Sony. The Sony reps have said that they will bring out the console when it's ready. You personally may think that the CELL could be ready for mass production, but the BILLION dollar company does not. And These things could not have been ready for 2005, if they could Sony probably would have launch side by side with the X360. To me that would have been better for Sony. But they didn't because they are not ready.

Your opinion. Like I said, a 2005 launch would have been nearly identical in HW

Identical what do you mean. You just said the CELL would have been smaller (like 1:4) remember. Thats a performance hit. Why not wait 6 more months to get everything that you want?

You would rather wait 6 years to get new fangled technology.

And like you blame me for I also said 5 years is the best timeframe. Its funny because we both agree. Again 5 years is perfect.

The RSX is a beefed up NV40 + some bells and whistles it seems

I really shouldn't have to respond to this one. Its becoming more obvious week to week that the RSX is not a beefed up NV40. Ken K. has already stated this personally.

I would rather a company be more progressive than too slow.

Thats your opioion and I respect it. Again I respect it because you can explain your thoughts in a respectable way.
________
HERBAL STORE

 

[jvd]

I remember reading that MS were trying to launch with one million consoles in each territory. I'm not sure if they will reach that amount but if they do that could be seen as a success. Hopefully after the first batch they can still produce it in huge amounts.

I haven't heard that . What i heard was 2 million for europe and the usa for thier respective launch days and another amount for japan with shipments to each of the teritorys increasing weekly . So while it may only be 1-2 million on launch day there is still another 5 months and 29 days or so to sell another 5-7 million consoles . We all know that the x360 will sell out at launch same with ps3 and rev . We know that the x360 as the only next gen system will enjoy a good holiday . If the ps3 only hits japan in march - may of 2006 then the lead for ms will only continue to increase till it hits europe and the usa .

Quote:

You would rather wait 6 years to get new fangled technology.


And like you blame me for I also said 5 years is the best timeframe. Its funny because we both agree. Again 5 years is perfect.

Look we can both play the tech game

Right now there is enough of a jump to make the new systems and next year there will be more things that you would want to add into a system. Then again in 2007 , 2008 , 2009 there will be new things you'd want into system .

So do we launch in 2005 with what we have and then again in 2009 /10 with that tech or do we launch in 2006 and miss out on 2007, 2008 , 2009 tech and launch another in 2010-2011 ?

I really shouldn't have to respond to this one. Its becoming more obvious week to week that the RSX is not a beefed up NV40. Ken K. has already stated this personally.

And nvidia has said its very similar irc



In reality it comes down to this .

Ms with a system this year that will offer 95-99% of the graphics of the ps3 which by all acounts will cost less than the ps3 will cost off the bat and will scale down quicker in cost

or

Sony with a system next year that supports interesting features , useless features and features that may become a dead end and then usefull features with a system that may or may not end up putting out slightly better graphics than ms and will surely cost more than the ms console


or


Nintendo who ummm is launching in 2006 with wifi and 3 generations worth of games at launch or around launch .


These are the choices and while choice 3 may not be right for you mabye choice 1 or 2 will be .

For me I like a 4-5 year generation as I get much better graphics every 4 years there is a big leap . Just look at what the x360 brings . It brings 720p with 4x fsaa thats off the bat . Then you have other things like live aware with every game , new improved controllers and wireless off the bat , a bigger hardrive (20vs 8) . Then you have the other graphical increases better physics , better ai . Its a good time to launch a new system .

As you've said yourself by 2009 or 2010 1080p will start to become what 720p is now and a new system will be ready then that can do 1080p with 6x fsaa and again it will be a good time to upgrade and again we will get a bunch of other great things right off the bat .


Where as with the old consoles to get a graphical jump the developers need to have huge budgets and wring every last nano second of speed out of the code they are writing .

 

[one]

As you've said yourself by 2009 or 2010 1080p will start to become what 720p is now

This person expects it to be Christmas 2005.

 

[jvd]

As you've said yourself by 2009 or 2010 1080p will start to become what 720p is now

This person expects it to be Christmas 2005.

actual all he is saying in that article is that the 720p prices will drop to what we can afford. He also talks about how there is no content for 1080p and we will only get the benfit from upscaling

don’t want to hype 1080p too much. First, we won’t get the full benefit of it until it moves from an upconversion format to a consumer video distribution format—probably not any time soon. Second, the real limitation now is not the number of pixels or lines of resolution or even the scanning format—it’s the MPEG-2 video compression used in both HDTV and DVD.

The real-world significance of the move to 1080p is that 720p HD-LCD flat panels—currently priced beyond what many of us can afford—should drop in price. After all, if manufacturers think they can tool up their production lines to reliably deliver more than two million pixels without too many dropouts, then fewer than a million should be a piece of cake. If 1080p is the new state of the art, then all those 720p-capable 32-inch LCD TVs selling for $2000-4000 should sell for less than half that by, say, oh, Christmas 2005. A 32-inch LCD set for less than a grand? I’m not promising anything—actually, I may be jumping the gun—but that’s something to look forward to!

So we’ll take what we can get: 1080i and 720p upconverted to 1080p, and cheaper 720p displays. Hey, even with its current set of compromises, HDTV looks great—and anything’s better than analog television.

 

[Acert93]

Your opinion. Like I said, a 2005 launch would have been nearly identical in HW

Identical what do you mean. You just said the CELL would have been smaller (like 1:4) remember. Thats a performance hit. Why not wait 6 more months to get everything that you want?

That was in reference to 2004. The CELL chip is a 90nm chip and ready for production. If they can get it out early Spring they could get it out in fall. Intel already has 90nm chips out, as does Sony (PS2). Similarly the Xbox 360 CPU and GPU are 90nm.

The RSX is a beefed up NV40 + some bells and whistles it seems

I really shouldn't have to respond to this one. Its becoming more obvious week to week that the RSX is not a beefed up NV40. Ken K. has already stated this personally.

[/quote]

And Jen Hsun has clearly said it is am implimentation of the new GeForce architecture, a series in development for 2 years with over 200 engineers, of which they only allocated 50 for the PS3 implimentation. This is from both the original press note and later comments from Jen Hsun himself.

So do we believe KK or Jen Hsun? I think KK has more to lose in this situation. R500 is NOT a PC part and has a much more advance featureset than currently seen on the PC--by at least a year. It would be a negative vibe if the PS3 only had a "current gen PC derivative"--EVEN IF IT PERFORMS BETTER (which is likely).

Also, with developers leaving hints like, "You will know more about the RSX when G70 is revealed" I stand to think that RSX is not some "completely different architecture" but exactly what Jen-Hsun and the original press release said: a GPU based on the next gen GeForce (which appears to be G70).

We can wait and see, but there is obviously conflicting data. I get the feeling RSX is a 90nm/higher clocked G70 with some tweaks and that interfaces with the CELL and can access both the XDR and GDDR3 memory pools. That is quite a bit to do actually, definately not some "lets plug a G70 into the PS3". It is very similar to the approach NV took with the Xbox GPU (NV2A). If that is what we get I would call that a progressive implimentation and a custom implimentation of the new GeForce architecture.

So while you trust KKs word, I think what Jen-Hsun has said seems to be more paletable. Either way, we do not know yet, but it is NOT obvious that it is a "completely new architecture".

 

[one]

As you've said yourself by 2009 or 2010 1080p will start to become what 720p is now

This person expects it to be Christmas 2005.

actual all he is saying in that article is that the 720p prices will drop to what we can afford. He also talks about how there is no content for 1080p and we will only get the benfit from upscaling

Those who can afford to buy 720p right now will buy 1080p when the price for 720p drops and 1080p displays replace the former 720p price range. Also Blu-ray can support 1080p.
http://espn.com.com/4520-6449_7-5798551-1.html

Sony reps said future Blu-ray players would be capable of outputting a native 1080p signal.

 

[one]

R500 is NOT a PC part

Well, without the separated eDRAM daughter-die it's pretty much a Windows PC GPU. It matches with Longhorn very well as you can very efficiently increase Pixel Shader load when you run a 3D desktop that doesn't need Vertex Shader much.

 

[jvd]

As you've said yourself by 2009 or 2010 1080p will start to become what 720p is now

This person expects it to be Christmas 2005.

actual all he is saying in that article is that the 720p prices will drop to what we can afford. He also talks about how there is no content for 1080p and we will only get the benfit from upscaling

Those who can afford to buy 720p right now will buy 1080p when the price for 720p drops and 1080p displays replace the former 720p price range. Also Blu-ray can support 1080p.
http://espn.com.com/4520-6449_7-5798551-1.html

Sony reps said future Blu-ray players would be capable of outputting a native 1080p signal.

unless the bought 720 p . But that still doesn't stop the fact that with 720p droping in price by almost half if this guy is correct it will sell many many many more units than 1080p . Thus falling into exactly what i stated that by 2009 1080p will become what 720p is now .

720p has been on the market for a number of years and has a good installed base which will continue to grow and when 1080p comes out at the high end 720p will drop in price drasticly and increase in sales drasticly too .

Anyway blu-ray will be capable of it but will it actualy come out with titles that support that res ? I don't know . Bluray isn't out yet and it may never really come out

 

[typoEDR]

Some new info (new... I think...) here.

 

[jvd]

Some new info (new... I think...) here.

na

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23435

I must have posted that two or three days ago and the person on ign that posted it originaly had it up for about a day before that

 

[jvd]

This is the one nice thing about the add on it has an antena that i don't know if the ps3 will have. Hopefully on the ms one you can change to a larger antena .

Depending on where in the hosue a larger antena can make the diffrence between very weak and very good . Or very good and excellent

 

[typoEDR]

For some reason, the wired controller is more appealing to me than a cordless one... oh, and the VGA.

 

[jvd]

For some reason, the wired controller is more appealing to me than a cordless one... oh, and the VGA.

why its the same controler ? I don't get it haha

Just one has a wire

 

[one]

http://retail.microsoft.com/retail/mimages/2047_WirelessUnitImage.jpg

This is the one nice thing about the add on it has an antena that i don't know if the ps3 will have. Hopefully on the ms one you can change to a larger antena .

If you've not seen the internal of PSP, you should check it out at somewhere... PSP has a longer Wi-Fi antenna in it than that XBOX360 addon